George Iloka penalty

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(09-11-2016, 10:03 PM)The Real Deal Wrote: I haven't seen this discussed yet. That personal foul penalty called on Iloka that ultimately ended in a TD was IMO, ridiculous. There is no way that should have been flagged and my TV (and my wife) sure did hear a lot about it from me. I was livid.

I really believe the league should allow one coaches challenge on a penalty called per game. I understand that hits like that are bang bang plays and in real speed it may be hard to tell. So why not allow a challenge there? It was an awful call that could have been made right immediately. I have no doubt in my mind that would have been reversed if that provision were available. So am I crazy or does this make sense for the league to explore?

You are not crazy, stupid calls like that change games.

[Ricky Spanish]

(09-12-2016, 10:24 PM)Sled21 Wrote: I said during the game day thread that it was a good call... "Hit to the head/neck area". Somebody on here who was most likely drunk called me a moron because he was watching it on a 60" tv from 5 feet away. Well, so was I, and I was taping it. It may have been  shoulder to shoulder, it was a also a hit to the head, and on the slow motion you can see the heads move when they collide. With the concussion crap going around, that is going to get called every time. If you people can't see that you either need to get glasses, read an NFL rulebook, or just admit you're no better than Stoolers fans whining about every call. I really like Iloka, but if he does not learn to lower his target, he is going to get called over and over again, and cost us. The first hit that he got away with was more egregious in that he launched on that one and the refs missed it. I'm sure they got the call from the booth to watch him. Shoulder to shoulder....LMFAO.
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]

If you truly think this was not a legitimate call on hitting a receiver in the head/neck area, you need to drink less beer during the game......

That was me.  It was a clean hit, shoulder to shoulder.  Helmets touched due to the impact of the receiver being hit, not because Iloka led with his helmet because he did not.

Its a bullshit call, period 

[Sled21]

(09-13-2016, 12:20 PM)Ricky Spanish Wrote: That was me.  It was a clean hit, shoulder to shoulder.  Helmets touched due to the impact of the receiver being hit, not because Iloka led with his helmet because he did not.

Its a bullshit call, period 

So you just admitted the helmets touched. So you just admitted you are wrong, and You obviously do not understand the rulebook.... let me type it slower......a....defender.......can....not...make....contact....with...the...receiver....in....the...head....neck....area.....
Look it up, Article 7, section B1.....

forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him

If you are going to ***** about the referees and call people names, at least try to understand the rulebook.......

[The Real Deal]

(09-13-2016, 01:34 PM)Sled21 Wrote: So you just admitted the helmets touched. So you just admitted you are wrong, and You obviously do not understand the rulebook.... let me type it slower......a....defender.......can....not...make....contact....with...the...receiver....in....the...head....neck....area.....
Look it up, Article 7, section B1.....

forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him

If you are going to ***** about the referees and call people names, at least try to understand the rulebook.......

Did you actually type it slower or did you just put a bunch of ellipsis between words?

[leonardfan40]

Anyone have a link to where the helmets touched? I thought it was clear that they didn't from the angle on tv. The angle in the pictures in the thread is worthless, looks like they're touching but from that angle it could just as easily not be touching.

Others are right if there is any contact it was the correct call. I just have yet to see anything showing contact and my memory from the game (which could be off or understandably biased) remembers seeing air between helmets the whole time

[leonardfan40]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=td4GVF3ijZk

Full game on YouTube. 46:20 is replay, unfortunately same angle as in the pics but it's video. I don't see any helmet contact there

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(09-13-2016, 02:10 PM)leonardfan40 Wrote: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=td4GVF3ijZk

Full game on YouTube. 46:20 is replay, unfortunately same angle as in the pics but it's video. I don't see any helmet contact there

Thanks man and i agree, no helmet contact. BS call.

[XenoMorph]

(09-11-2016, 10:14 PM)TGISunday Wrote: I yelled when the jets timekeeper started screwing us at the end of the half. Did anyone else find it odd when we threw to the sidelines four straight times, caught, player went out of bounds moving forward, yet nearly two minutes ticked off between plays.  That was egregious, not sure how the refs didn't catch that the player caught the ball, went out of bounds at 2:12, then time rolls off and it's the two minute warning.

yeah its like awesome hes out of bounds so the clock should stop then it kept ticking... it was confusing as hell..

[XenoMorph]

(09-13-2016, 02:10 PM)leonardfan40 Wrote: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=td4GVF3ijZk

Full game on YouTube. 46:20 is replay, unfortunately same angle as in the pics but it's video. I don't see any helmet contact there

I don't think it has to be helmet contact just to the head neck region.

But the call was pretty BS.  

at least they started calling somethings on the jets later it seemed the nfl was out to give the jets the 9/11 game at first.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(09-13-2016, 02:34 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: yeah its like awesome hes out of bounds so the clock should stop then it kept ticking... it was confusing as hell..

For sure, i was wondering what the hell was going on at the time and just remembered this thanks to you guys.

Beyond cheating, reminded me of playing Pittsburgh.

[leonardfan40]

(09-13-2016, 02:37 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: I don't think it has to be helmet contact just to the head neck region.

But the call was pretty BS.  

at least they started calling somethings on the jets later it seemed the nfl was out to give the jets the 9/11 game at first.

Yeah it's head or neck, but when a player is in full pads and helmet they basically don't have a neck to hit. Pretty much just need to look for contact with helmet/face mask 

[Sled21]

It's pretty simple physics really, if he hit him in the shoulder and did not contact the head, the head would snap toward the hit. It doesn't, it goes away from Iloka's helmet because they made contact. You all are amazing..... keep telling yourselfs you don't see what you see.....

[leonardfan40]

(09-13-2016, 03:43 PM)Sled21 Wrote: It's pretty simple physics really, if he hit him in the shoulder and did not contact the head, the head would snap toward the hit. It doesn't, it goes away from Iloka's helmet because they made contact. You all are amazing..... keep telling yourselfs you don't see what you see.....

If he were completely limp or a crash test dummy that would be true. In real life it never is that simple tho 

[cinci4life]

(09-13-2016, 01:34 PM)Sled21 Wrote: So you just admitted the helmets touched. So you just admitted you are wrong, and You obviously do not understand the rulebook.... let me type it slower......a....defender.......can....not...make....contact....with...the...receiver....in....the...head....neck....area.....
Look it up, Article 7, section B1.....

forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him

If you are going to ***** about the referees and call people names, at least try to understand the rulebook.......

I think you need to look at the first line. Problem is that he didn't forcibly hit the head or neck area. It was shoulder to shoulder with very very little contact to he helmet after the initial hit. No way in hell was it excessive enough to warrant a penalty.

[Sled21]

(09-13-2016, 05:29 PM)cinci4life Wrote: I think you need to look at the first line. Problem is that he didn't forcibly hit the head or neck area. It was shoulder to shoulder with very very little contact to he helmet after the initial hit. No way in hell was it excessive enough to warrant a penalty.

It was forceful enough that it changed his direction. You can argue it all you want, it is going to be flagged everytime it happens.